Copyright Issue

Jimbers wrote in post #11410255
also, despite all your big legal talk and mumbo jumbo about the images being yours, i don't think you really know if the image is yours, particularly after the client has paid you for the image. frankly, you can state whatever you want in some kind of legal disclaimer, but that doesn't make it legally binding, or ethically persuasive for that matter.

Yes, the image is still hers as long as she did not have a contract giving all copyright to the client. It does not matter that the client paid for the session and the prints, this is a pretty clear issue. The link posted before should have a professional/legal explanation of this.

The image copyright belongs to the photographer until they give up/sell those rights. Even if it's not registered with the copyright office. It's not mumbo-jumbo, it's pretty clear cut.


The one thing that I am confused about - people on this forum repeatedly say that if you don't register BEFORE the infringement, you have reduced rights. but - from photoattorney.com - http://www.photoattorn​ey.com/?p=515

"When a photo is not registered with the U.S. Copyright Office prior to the infringement (or within three months of the first publication of the photo), a copyright owner may recover only “actual damages” for the infringement (pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 504 (b)), instead of statutory damages."

Which sounds like it means as long as it's registered within 3 months after the publication/infringeme​nt, you can still recover statutory damages.... and only after that point would your options be more limited. Am I - or photoattorney - interpreting this wrong?

Jimbers wrote in post #11410333
hey bosscat, no reason to throw a tantrum and curse at me. client paid for the prints. in my mind, she can do what she wants with them, within reason, after that. for example, if she wants to post them on her facebook page she can probably do that without impunity or invoking the wrath of the photographer.

uuuummm, actually no she can't

if my clients want to post online I give them for free a websize version with my logo otherwise they need to pay for the file...

Mark1 wrote in post #11410044
You can... But you have 45 days from the day of infringement. And as the infringement has already happened, you have already lost your ability to go after punitive damages. You can now only go after actual damages.

Where did you get this information? I'm asking because I'm genuinely interested in finding out the truth, as I see statements like this on the forum which contradict those by legal advisors, such as the quote I just posted above from photoattorney.

I think we're all being naive if we think that customers aren't going to scan a print and use it for a Christmas card... Especially from a December shoot!

Pick your battles.. This wouldn't be one I'd fight.

It also seems a little driven by pride. If she were to compliment your work instead of expressing her preference for 'vanilla' type pictures... I don't think this thread would exist. You were probably a little irritated and insulted when she expressed that to you. So when you saw the Christmas card.. It put you over the edge. Would you really care if it was 'amanda' who raves and consistently compliments your work?

I agree it is pretty confusing. I read that information from photoattorney as well. I may e-mail and ask her.

jenirose3 wrote in post #11410352
uuuummm, actually no she can't

if my clients want to post online I give them for free a websize version with my logo otherwise they need to pay for the file...

if your were not facebook friends with your client, how would know if they posted one your pictures online? you probably wouldn't. you just happen to come across this christmas card. again, i don't think you have much a case, and believe you would be wasting your time and effort trying to get restitution for an image or two used against your will.

Jimbers wrote in post #11410333
hey bosscat, no reason to throw a tantrum and curse at me. client paid for the prints. in my mind, she can do what she wants with them, within reason, after that. for example, if she wants to post them on her facebook page she can probably do that without impunity or invoking the wrath of the photographer.

Whats funny, is that you dont understand copyright laws whatsoever...

there's also this to consider, from this copyright office http://www.copyright.g​ov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html:

"There may be situations in which the reproduction of a photograph may be a “fair use” under the copyright law. Information about fair use may be found at: www.copyright.gov/fls/​fl102.html. However, even if a person determines a use to be a “fair use” under the factors of section 107 of the Copyright Act, a copy shop or other third party need not accept the person’s assertion that the use is noninfringing. Ultimately, only a federal court can determine whether a particular use is, in fact, a fair use under the law."

canonnoob wrote in post #11410434
Whats funny, is that you dont understand copyright laws whatsoever...

Drozz119 wrote in post #11410387
I think we're all being naive if we think that customers aren't going to scan a print and use it for a Christmas card... Especially from a December shoot!

Pick your battles.. This wouldn't be one I'd fight.

It also seems a little driven by pride. If she were to compliment your work instead of expressing her preference for 'vanilla' type pictures... I don't think this thread would exist. You were probably a little irritated and insulted when she expressed that to you. So when you saw the Christmas card.. It put you over the edge. Would you really care if it was 'amanda' who raves and consistently compliments your work?

First I don't think I'm naive....hence the "legal mumbo jumbo" (as jimbers so eloquently put it) in my contracts, all over my website etc. She's a business woman in a fairly high paying job. She knows what she did was wrong and just thought should could get away with it.

Actually I would feel the same way. Where it would probably differ is if she was nice and polite and friendly to me. Her husband was very nice but she not so much. I am a very 'get more bees with honey' kind of person. Some clients who have treated nice (not monetarily just with a nice attitude) have asked for file to print cards from at the last minute or whatever and I given them to them as a thank you for your business, I appreciate you as a customer kind of thing.

In fact I send thank yous in the form of extra prints, etc in every order. Some thank yous are bigger then others. Depends how you treat me.

With this customer it became obvious after the first shoot when she wanted the most hideous 'selective color' on her announcements we were not a match made in heaven. As a professional I showed her proofs with varying degrees (opacity) of selective color gently explaining that selective color along with the flower headband 10x the size of the newborns head(selective color on the ginormous flower) can detract from the beautiful newborns face. In other words all people are going to see is this huge ass gi-normous hot pink flower not your girl/boy twin newborns. She still chose the full opacity version and I printed it. I didn't post it on my sneakpeek blog though or in my gallery. I heard from my other client she was miffed that I didn't. Hence then snotty rude attitude from this client.

I never really intended on pursuing this for $$$ just want her to know I know and maybe she will think twice about doing it again.

As the copyright holder you can put just about any constraint on the use of them that you want to. Putting them on facebook is legally considered publishing them. Legally they do not have the right to publish them, in any form. Unless it is given to them by the copyright holder. Scanning them and making duplicates is I hope pretty obviously wrong.

canonnoob wrote in post #11410434
Whats funny, is that you dont understand copyright laws whatsoever...

AND.....

WAIT FOR IT.....


He's not a lawyer or a photographer. Shocker.

not so obvious to me, mark1, and probably not others as well. ridiculous constraints seem wrong to me, particularly in this case.

Mark1 wrote in post #11410463
As the copyright holder you can put just about any constraint on the use of them that you want to. Putting them on facebook is legally considered publishing them. Legally they do not have the right to publish them, in any form. Unless it is given to them by the copyright holder. Scanning them and making duplicates is I hope pretty obviously wrong.

Jimbers wrote in post #11410447
there's also this to consider, from this copyright office http://www.copyright.g​ov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html:

"There may be situations in which the reproduction of a photograph may be a “fair use” under the copyright law. Information about fair use may be found at: www.copyright.gov/fls/​fl102.html. However, even if a person determines a use to be a “fair use” under the factors of section 107 of the Copyright Act, a copy shop or other third party need not accept the person’s assertion that the use is noninfringing. Ultimately, only a federal court can determine whether a particular use is, in fact, a fair use under the law."

Unfortunately, just because a person purchases a print does not grant them fair use. It just garaentees them a photo to hang on their wall.

a good example. I was making a wedding video for a client- shot video on my 1dmkIV. I contact the manager of artist of the song I wanted to use- fairly large named artist, the artist got back to me, I explained the situation- in this case I had done the video pro bono. The artist allowed me to use the image under fair use. In this case, it is considered fair use because of the non commercial- non profit use that it was going to be used for. Just because I bought the song on Itunes does not mean that I get a right to use the song anyway I choose. /of discussion.

Jimbers wrote in post #11410333
hey bosscat, no reason to throw a tantrum and curse at me. client paid for the prints. in my mind, she can do what she wants with them, within reason, after that. for example, if she wants to post them on her facebook page she can probably do that without impunity or invoking the wrath of the photographer.

A tantrum...trust me, you don't wanna be within a 100 mile radius when I throw a tantrum.

The fact is that when a person buys a print of any size, all they are buying is the right to display that privately. If they want a larger print, thats another purchase, not something they can legally do at home or at Wal-Mart.

If they decide to scan it and post it on facebook, they are commiting a fraud by claiming they have the legal right to post such image.

Jimbers wrote in post #11410481
not so obvious to me, mark1, and probably not others as well. ridiculous constraints seem wrong to me, particularly in this case.

Have you never looked at the 1st few pages of any book or magazine or the back of a record album in regards to copyright?